But we did win in West Indies and South Africa that we hadn't done for a couple of generations so it was a very good side. Not as good as the Strauss side a few years later but easily our 2nd best in my lifetime.
I was thinking about that too, but you beat me to it. They whitewashed NZ too, and that doesn't happen very often. It's still the only England side that's won in the Caribbean since 1968. I suppose some might argue that the batting line-up that won in the WI was very different to what we saw in 2005, with only 2 of the top 5 still there. But that WI tour was, I think, the first time we saw the pace attack that brought the Ashes back home in 2005.
The current England side? Holy ****. If the current England side played the 05 one in those conditions, with three guys bowling 150+, Jones reversing it, Hoggard bending it, they'd be lucky to get to 100 in 10 goes through the series. Good luck Bazballing Harmison off a length, Jones bending it both ways at will, Flintoff the same. Flintoff had Gilchrist on toast. You don't reckon he'd reduce Ben Duckett to sucking his thumb (if he ever got to bat that far into the innings)?
On current form, Jones gets the gig. His batting average is slightly higher and at no point did any of his drops actually cost England a Test (or 2).
I know we drew, not lost, but he missed a stumping (and dropped a catch too I think) off Warne early-ish in his 90 in the 3rd test. Take either of those and we should win that match pretty comfortably
I thought Jones cost us at Old Trafford in that series. I really wasn't a Jones fan at all although I certainly don't debate Bairstow has been rank this series.
Hoggard over Harmison from 2005.....and it's only been 1 test but if Wood can bowl grenades like that again at OT then he's locking in a spot from a combined team.
You've got 2 allrounders in there but that still feels a bowler light tbh. Hoggard or Wood (subject to another great test) have to be in there.
On just numbers (forgetting about where people want to play), you'd probably have Trescothick, Strauss, KP, Root, Stokes, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Broad, Harmison/Wood, Jones
Hoggard was 16 @ 29.5 vs Harmison 17 @ 32.3. But yeah, most of that was concentrated into the Lords test for Harmison and he was mostly underwhelming afterwards
This logic is terrible, though. The costliness of drops is not down to the player who drops them so using it to determine which one you prefer makes zero sense!
Harbhajan was never an ATG, not even ATVG.
This was CW's take on Harmison's performance shortly after the series finished:
I know Jones got a fifty in the series, maybe a second, but I just remember his terrible dismissal in the small chase at Trent Bridge when he just ran down the wicket to a rampant Warne and spooned it in the air. Luckily Hoggard and Giles saw us home.
